Mario P. Varvoglis, PhD Sources:

Mario P. Varvoglis

Mario P. Varvoglis is an experimental psychologist and parapsychology researcher who has served as President of the Institut Métapsychique International (IMI) in Paris since 1998.[1] His research spans micro-psychokinesis, ganzfeld studies, and forced-choice precognition protocols, with a sustained focus on identifying the psychological and situational conditions that make psi effects more likely to appear.[2][3] He was a contributor to the landmark Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL) autoganzfeld program under Charles Honorton, and has continued experimental work at IMI through the Selfield and Psi@Home protocols.[4][3][5] The Parapsychological Association recognized his career with its Outstanding Career Award in 2008.[1]

Career affiliations: Maimonides Medical Center Dream Laboratory; Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL), Princeton, NJ; Institut Métapsychique International (IMI), Paris (President, 1998–present)

Deeper dives — Varvoglis:

Forced-Choice Precognition and GESP Consciousness, Intentionality Cross-Cultural Parapsychology Micro-PK and RNG Methodology

Why This Is Hard to Study

Psi effects in Varvoglis’s research areas are small on average and highly variable across participants and conditions. This creates several specific challenges that make both positive and null results difficult to interpret cleanly.

The micro-PK literature is dominated by a handful of exceptional performers. When a dataset contains two participants whose individual contributions dwarf those of all other participants combined, standard power calculations based on the overall effect size will badly underestimate the sample needed to replicate, as happened with the PEAR/Consortium replication.[2] A null result in a study powered for the average effect tells us little about whether the phenomenon exists; it may simply mean the exceptional performers were not in that sample.

Forced-choice precognition studies face a different problem: participant motivation and mental state appear to moderate performance, but these are hard to standardise or verify. The Selfield and Psi@Home programs found that tryout sessions, when participants were newer and more motivated, showed patterns consistent with psi effects, while the formal registered sessions did not.[5] This raises the possibility that the act of formalising a study changes the psychological conditions that produce the effect. Mainstream research on how expectation and motivation shape physiological responses is relevant context here.[7]

Publication bias and optional stopping are live concerns across the broader psi literature, and the micro-PK field is no exception. See methods/replication for ESP-Nexus’s broader analysis of replication standards in parapsychology and the 2-of-3 binomial-replication framing applied across the corpus.[8] Varvoglis and Bancel acknowledge substantial publication bias in the RNG literature while arguing that a subset of high-z studies cannot be explained by bias alone.[2] Resolving this requires the kind of adversarially designed, pre-registered, adequately powered replication that the field has rarely achieved.

Type-II Vulnerability Details for Varvoglis’s Research Areas

Sample dependence: The PEAR benchmark analysis showed that two participants (operator IDs 10 and 78) contributed nearly a quarter of all trials and accounted for the vast majority of the total HI–LO deviation. The remaining participants produced a combined result comparable to the nonsignificant consortium replication. This means the benchmark effect size is not representative of the general population and cannot safely be used for power calculations in replications.[2]

State-dependent moderators: Meditation practice, belief in psi, Myers-Briggs personality type, and participant motivation all appear to moderate psi scoring in Varvoglis’s studies. These moderators are difficult to control and may shift between a study’s tryout and formal phases, as observed in the Psi@Home data.[5] Mainstream neuroscience confirms that meditation produces measurable changes in attention and arousal regulation, which could plausibly affect performance on tasks requiring sustained focus.[9][10]

Experimenter effects: Varvoglis and Bancel discuss at length the possibility that successful micro-PK experimenters, including Helmut Schmidt, may themselves be psi-talented subjects whose own abilities contribute to results. If so, replication by a different experimenter is not a straightforward test of the participant effect.[2]

Small effect sizes and Type M error: When true effects are small relative to noise, statistically significant studies will systematically overestimate effect magnitude. This is a known problem in underpowered research generally and applies directly to the micro-PK literature.[11]

Life and career

Varvoglis trained in experimental psychology, completing his PhD at Adelphi University with a dissertation on psychokinesis, intentionality, and attention.[1] His early research was conducted at the Maimonides Medical Center Dream Laboratory, where he worked under Charles Honorton, the researcher who would become his primary mentor.[1] When Honorton moved to Princeton to found the Psychophysical Research Laboratories, Varvoglis followed, contributing to the PRL’s micro-PK program and to the autoganzfeld research that would become one of the most cited datasets in experimental parapsychology.[4][6]

In 1998 he was asked to become President of the Institut Métapsychique International, an institution founded in 1919 that had been through a difficult period, and he accepted.[1] He has held that role for more than two decades, working to re-establish the IMI’s experimental research program alongside its historical and archival functions.

Within the Parapsychological Association, Varvoglis served as Vice-President for two years and received the PA’s Outstanding Career Award in 2008, recognising a career in parapsychology of at least two decades.[1] He has described his research career as beginning in the mid-1970s.[3]

Career Context: IMI and the European Research Landscape

His stated goal on taking the role was to re-establish an experimental orientation, prioritising active research over conferences and discussion alone.[1]

Varvoglis has noted that when he arrived in France in the mid-1980s, there was essentially no institutional space for serious scientific discussion of parapsychological phenomena, in contrast to the situation in the United States at the time, where several funded laboratories were active. He has observed that the European landscape has changed considerably since then, with research programs now active in the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy, in addition to France.[1]

Research

Autoganzfeld and the PRL program

Varvoglis was a co-author on the Honorton-led PRL autoganzfeld series, one of the most methodologically careful ganzfeld programs of its era. The system used a computer-controlled videocassette recorder to present targets, automated the selection and judging procedure, and separated sender and receiver in sound-attenuated rooms to eliminate sensory cuing.[4] The series produced statistically significant above-chance performance overall, with dynamic video targets yielding stronger results than static images, a finding that held up when compared against the earlier ganzfeld meta-analysis.[4]

The ganzfeld state itself, uniform visual and auditory stimulation that reduces ordinary sensory input, has been characterised in mainstream cognitive neuroscience as producing an activated, non-hypnagogic state with distinct EEG signatures.[12] Research on the default mode network suggests that in low-stimulation conditions, the brain generates substantial spontaneous imagery independent of any external signal.[13][14] This is the baseline against which any above-chance matching of receiver imagery to sender targets must be evaluated.

PRL Autoganzfeld: Protocol and Results Detail

The PRL autoganzfeld series reported by Honorton, Berger, Varvoglis, Quant, Derr, Hansen, Schechter, and Ferrari (1990) covered eleven experimental series. Participants were volunteers ranging widely in age; the majority reported strong belief in psi and personal psi experiences, and over 80% had practiced mental disciplines. Series sample sizes were specified in advance for all but two pilot series, and all sessions, including pilots and ongoing series, were included in the database to avoid a file-drawer problem.[4]

The primary hypothesis was tested via exact binomial probability for direct hits. Secondary hypotheses addressed dynamic versus static targets and acquainted versus unacquainted sender-receiver pairs. All remaining analyses were designated exploratory in advance. Randomisation was verified through multiple control samples. The possibility of subliminal auditory cues from the VCR soundtrack was investigated and addressed through a circuit modification; the hit rate in the final sessions after modification was at least as high as in earlier sessions, arguing against auditory leakage as an explanation.[4]

The series effect sizes were homogeneous across all eleven series and across all eight experimenters. When combined with Honorton’s earlier meta-analysis of the broader ganzfeld literature, the overall database showed a highly significant cumulative result. The dynamic-target advantage was replicated in both the autoganzfeld data and the meta-analysis, and the two databases did not differ significantly on this dimension.[4]

For four-alternative forced-choice judging (as in the autoganzfeld), hit rates are evaluated against a 25% chance baseline using exact binomial tests; signal detection theory is the appropriate framework when modeling sensitivity/criterion (e.g., ROC analyses) rather than for the primary hit-rate test itself.[15]

Participant predictors in ganzfeld: first-timers research

Varvoglis was also a co-author on PRL research examining what predicts success in first-time ganzfeld participants. The most consistent finding was that participants classified as “feeling types” on the Myers-Briggs Thinking/Feeling scale performed notably better than “thinking types.” This effect was especially strong for feeling types who received dynamic video targets.[6] Participants who reported more types of prior spontaneous psi experiences also tended to score higher, and this variable accounted for most of the variance contributed by psi belief in a multiple-regression analysis.[6]

First-Timers Series: Methodology and Predictor Variables

The first-timers research drew on two series (FT1 and FT2), each targeting 50 novice participants contributing a single session. Participants completed a Participant Information Form covering demographics, psi attitudes, and self-reported psi experiences, as well as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Tellegen Absorption Scale. The automated PRL ganzfeld system was used for all sessions.[6]

Overall results for FT1 were nonsignificant on both direct hits and sum-of-ranks indices. FT2, with 23 of 50 sessions completed at the time of reporting, showed both indices approaching significance, with a direct-hit rate within the range of earlier successful studies, though neither index reached the pre-specified alpha level required when two tests were used.[6]

Key predictor findings: (a) Feeling types (N=28) showed strong psi performance while thinking types (N=22) performed at chance; (b) the feeling-type advantage was especially pronounced for dynamic targets, the 12 feeling types with dynamic targets showed exceptionally high scoring; (c) participants recruited through personal contact outperformed those recruited through advertisements or media, and were also more introverted; (d) self-rated “reserved” participants outperformed “outgoing” participants; (e) number of types of self-reported ESP experiences correlated positively with psi Z-score; (f) no relationship was found between Tellegen Absorption scores and ganzfeld performance; (g) an interaction between extraversion/introversion and sender type (friend vs. lab-assigned) was found, with participants tending to perform best with their preferred sender type.[6]

Micro-psychokinesis: elitist versus universalist strategies

A central theme in Varvoglis’s micro-PK work, developed with collaborator Peter A. Bancel at IMI, is the question of whether micro-PK is a rare exceptional ability or a weak but broadly distributed one. Their analysis of the two major bodies of RNG research, Helmut Schmidt’s highly selective work with individual participants, and the PEAR laboratory’s large-scale program with unselected volunteers, led them to conclude that the evidence favors the exceptional view.[2]

The key insight was that the PEAR benchmark study’s significant cumulative result was dominated by two outlier participants whose individual effect sizes were far larger than those of the remaining participants. When those two are set aside, the rest of the PEAR dataset looks very similar to the nonsignificant consortium replication. This means the replication was not powered to detect the true population effect, it was powered for an inflated estimate that included the outliers.[2] Publication bias is a genuine concern in this literature, and standard funnel-plot methods have been applied to it.[8] Varvoglis and Bancel acknowledge substantial publication bias while arguing it cannot account for the full pattern of results, particularly the cluster of high-z studies.[2]

PEAR Outlier Analysis: Data Detail

The PEAR benchmark experiment ran for 12 years and collected over 2.5 million experimental trials from 91 participants using a tripolar HI/LO/BL protocol. At termination, the experiment had attained high significance. The consortium replication, involving PEAR and two German laboratories (Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene in Freiburg, and the Center for Psychobiology and Behavioral Medicine at Justus-Liebig Universität in Giessen), used the same protocol and collected a comparable volume of data from 227 participants. The replication result was nonsignificant, with an effect size nearly an order of magnitude smaller than expected.[2]

Varvoglis and Bancel’s re-analysis identified two participants (operator IDs 10 and 78) whose combined contribution was nearly a quarter of the total trials and whose combined z-score was substantially higher than that of the remaining 89 participants. The 89-participant subset produced a result comparable to the nonsignificant consortium replication. The difference between the two outliers and the remaining participants was significant at a high level. This analysis implies that the consortium’s power calculation, based on the full benchmark effect size, was an overestimate; a replication powered for the outlier-removed effect size would have required substantially more data.[2]

Varvoglis and Bancel also discuss Schmidt’s research strategy in detail. Schmidt pre-selected participants through systematic preliminary testing, sometimes spending months testing many dozens of people before settling on a handful for a formal experiment. He also allowed flexible session scheduling, warm-up tests, and participant-initiated breaks, conditions designed to maintain motivation and a psi-conducive state. The authors suggest Schmidt’s own psi ability as a subject may also have contributed to his results as an experimenter, raising questions about generalisability.[2]

Selfield and Psi@Home: optimising forced-choice precognition

Varvoglis’s more recent experimental work has focused on developing protocols that combine the data-collection efficiency of forced-choice designs with the participant-optimisation features of free-response methods. The Selfield protocol, developed at IMI with Bancel and colleagues, used an immersive audiovisual environment, a custom dark-chamber display system, reclining chair, and headphones, to induce a relaxed, absorbed state before and during a binary forced-choice precognition task.[3]

The Selfield exploratory study found no overall psi effect in its unselected participant pool. However, a subgroup of experienced meditators in the Shambhala lineage of Tibetan Buddhism scored above chance on feedback trials, and a post-hoc analysis suggested that hit rates on feedback trials increased over the course of a 20-trial session, consistent with participants finding a more effective mental strategy as the session progressed.[3] These are hypothesis-generating findings only; they were not pre-registered and require independent replication before they can be treated as evidence. Mainstream neuroscience on meditation and attention regulation is relevant context for interpreting the meditator subgroup result.[16][9]

The subsequent Psi@Home study used a remote internet-based platform (the Selfield application) to test two pre-selected cohorts, meditators and psychic practitioners, and general public members, in a pre-registered forced-choice precognition design. The three pre-registered hypotheses were not confirmed for either cohort.[5] An exploratory comparison of cohort variances was confirmed, with meditators showing higher session variance than the general public, but per ESP-Nexus’s evidential standard, this exploratory finding after pre-registered failure is hypothesis-generating only and does not count as positive evidence until confirmed by an independent pre-registered replication.[5]

Notably, the tryout and recruitment data collected before the formal study showed highly significant session variance consistent with a mixture of psi-hitting and psi-missing, a pattern the authors attribute partly to higher participant motivation during the tryout phase.[5] The replication crisis literature is relevant context: across psychology broadly, only a minority of significant effects replicate, and the gap between exploratory and confirmatory findings is a known source of inflated effect estimates.[17]

Psi@Home 2025: Pre-registered Hypotheses and Tryout Data

The 2025 Psi@Home study (Varvoglis et al., Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 5(1), 14–46) used the Selfield application delivered remotely. Participants completed 20-trial sessions at home. The formal study collected 80 sessions per cohort (meditators/psychic practitioners: N=24; general public: N=23). Pre-registered hypotheses tested via binomial and chi-squared analyses.[5]

Pre-registered confirmatory hypothesis 1 (increased session variance for meditator cohort): not confirmed (χ²(80) ≈ 89, p ≈ .22). Pre-registered confirmatory hypothesis 1 for open cohort: not confirmed (χ²(80) ≈ 58, p ≈ .97). Formal study hit rates were non-significant for both cohorts. The exploratory hypothesis comparing cohort variances was confirmed (ΔΔχ²(80) ≈ 31, p ≈ .03), with meditators showing higher variance, but this is exploratory after pre-registered failure and is hypothesis-generating only.[5]

Tryout/recruitment data (90 sessions, 1789 trials) showed highly significant session variance, approximately 4 standard deviations above null expectation, in the direction expected for a psi-missing model. A likelihood-ratio analysis favored a psi-mixing model (psi-hitting and psi-missing across participants) over an outlier model by a substantial margin. The authors attribute the tryout-versus-formal discrepancy partly to higher motivation during tryout sessions and possible motivational decline once the formal study began.[5]

Researcher degrees of freedom in psychophysiological and forced-choice analyses, including window selection, baseline definition, and subgroup identification, are a known source of false positives in underpowered studies.[18] The pre-registration of the Psi@Home hypotheses addresses this concern for the primary analyses, though the exploratory findings remain subject to it.

Key quantitative findings

A machine-readable summary of headline results from this researcher’s landmark papers, extracted from the source articles into ESP-Nexus’s structured study database. It reports what each study found; ESP-Nexus does not assess whether the effects are genuine.

PaperReported findingEffect / significanceBasis
Bancel et al. (2025), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition [DOI]The two pre-registered cohort studies (Meditator and Open, 80 sessions each) found no direct evidence of a psi effect on the confirmatory session-variance test or the hit-rate tests; one exploratory test (greater Meditator-than-Open session variance) reached p=.032 but the authors caution it may be…z = 4.0, p = .000031, hit rate 0.505990 sessions; 1,789 trials
 Source: ESP-Nexus structured study database. Figures linked to a DOI are from born-digital sources; figures marked “pending source-verification” were extracted from OCR text and have not yet been confirmed against the original article.

Skeptical Critiques and Discussion

Critique 1: The micro-PK RNG literature is best explained by publication bias, and the small overall effect size disappears when bias is corrected.

Skeptic source: Bösch, H., Steinkamp, F., & Boller, E. (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators, a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 497–523.[22]

Response: Bösch et al. found a significant but very small overall effect across 380 studies, and argued that the effect-size/sample-size relationship was consistent with publication bias. Varvoglis and Bancel acknowledge substantial publication bias in the RNG literature but argue that a subset of high-z studies, including Schmidt’s extensive body of work, renders a pure publication-bias explanation implausible, and that the literature is too heterogeneous for meta-analytic effect-size estimates to be reliable.[2] The funnel-plot method used by Bösch et al. is a standard tool for detecting publication bias, though its application to heterogeneous literatures has known limitations.[8] When true effect sizes are small relative to noise, statistically significant studies will systematically overestimate effect magnitude even without publication bias, a dynamic that complicates interpretation of the size-effect relationship.[11]

Analysis. Both sides have published in peer-reviewed venues; the heterogeneity of the RNG literature makes it genuinely difficult to determine whether the overall effect reflects a real phenomenon, publication bias, or both.

Critique 2: Forced-choice precognition studies, including those using optimisation protocols, consistently fail to replicate when pre-registered.

Skeptic source: Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426–432.[23]

Response: The 2025 Psi@Home study’s three pre-registered hypotheses were not supported for either cohort.[5] This is consistent with the broader pattern that flexible analysis and optional stopping inflate frequentist evidence in psi research, as Wagenmakers et al. argued in the context of Bem’s precognition studies. The Selfield exploratory study also found no overall effect in an unselected population.[3] The tryout data showing significant session variance remains unexplained but is exploratory and hypothesis-generating only. Varvoglis’s own conclusion from this line of work is that unselected populations are unlikely to produce reliable forced-choice psi effects, and that future research should focus on selected participants, a position that implicitly acknowledges the replication difficulty.[2][3]

Analysis. The pre-registered forced-choice precognition results are null; the positive signals are exploratory and have not been independently replicated in a pre-registered design.

Influence and reception

Varvoglis’s contribution to the Honorton et al. (1990) autoganzfeld paper has made him a recurring citation in the ganzfeld literature. The paper appears in the reference lists of major meta-analyses, textbooks, and review articles across several decades, including Bem and Honorton’s 1994 Psychological Bulletin article, Storm et al.’s 2010 Psychological Bulletin meta-analysis, Cardeña’s 2018 American Psychologist review, and the Tressoldi and Katz remote-viewing meta-analysis.[24][20][25][26]

His chapter on micro-psychokinesis, co-authored with Bancel, appears in Cardeña, Palmer, and Marcusson-Clavertz’s Parapsychology: A Handbook for the 21st Century (McFarland, 2015), the field’s most comprehensive recent reference work.[27] The chapter addresses four central questions about micro-PK: whether a genuine effect exists, whether it is attributable to receptive or expressive mechanisms, what psychological and physical moderators shape it, and how replicable it is across experimenters.[27]

As President of the IMI, Varvoglis has worked to maintain the institution’s role as a centre for rigorous parapsychological research in France, a country where the field has historically had little institutional support. He has also contributed to public communication of scientific parapsychology through French-language books and public lectures.[1][28][29]

Citation Presence in the Broader Literature

The Honorton, Berger, Varvoglis et al. (1990) autoganzfeld paper is cited in: Bem & Honorton (1994) in Psychological Bulletin; Storm, Tressoldi & Di Risio (2010) in Psychological Bulletin; Cardeña (2018) in American Psychologist; Tressoldi & Katz (2023) in the Journal of Scientific Exploration; Utts (1999) in the Journal of Scientific Exploration; and multiple parapsychology textbooks and handbooks including Irwin’s An Introduction to Parapsychology (5th ed.), Henry’s Parapsychology, and Radin’s Entangled Minds.[30][24][25][31][32][33][20]

Varvoglis and McCarthy (1986) on conscious-purposive focus and PK, and Varvoglis (1988) on a psychic contest using a computer-RNG task in a non-laboratory setting, are also cited in the Bösch et al. (2006) Psychological Bulletin meta-analysis of RNG studies.[22]

Open Questions: What Would Change the Picture

Varvoglis’s own research trajectory points to several questions that remain genuinely open and that specific study designs could address.

The most pressing is whether the meditator advantage in forced-choice psi tasks is real and replicable. The Selfield and Psi@Home studies both found suggestive patterns in meditator subgroups, but neither was powered to test this as a primary hypothesis in a pre-registered design. A study pre-registering the meditator comparison as the primary hypothesis, with a sample size determined by a realistic effect-size estimate from the existing data, would either confirm or rule out this moderator.[3][5]

The tryout-versus-formal discrepancy in Psi@Home, where tryout data showed significant session variance but formal data did not, raises a specific testable question: does the act of formalising a study (pre-registration, explicit performance criteria, experimenter awareness of the formal phase) change participant psychology in ways that suppress psi effects? A design that varied the degree of formalisation while holding other conditions constant could test this directly.[5]

On micro-PK, the outlier analysis of the PEAR data implies that a well-powered replication of Schmidt-style intensive work with pre-selected participants, rather than unselected volunteers, has never been done by an independent laboratory. Such a study, with adversarial design and pre-registration, would be the most direct test of whether the exceptional-performer model holds up outside Schmidt’s own laboratory.[2]

Methodological Requirements for Decisive Tests

For the meditator-psi hypothesis: a pre-registered study with (a) a primary hypothesis specifying the meditator versus non-meditator comparison, (b) a sample size determined by power analysis using the effect size observed in the Selfield meditator subgroup as the prior estimate, (c) independent replication by a laboratory with no prior investment in the hypothesis, and (d) Bayesian sequential analysis to allow early stopping for evidence in either direction.[34]

For the micro-PK exceptional-performer hypothesis: a study that (a) pre-screens a large pool of participants using a standardised RNG task, (b) selects the top scorers for a formal experiment, (c) pre-registers the selection criteria and the formal-experiment hypothesis, and (d) is conducted by an experimenter who is not the same person as the pre-screener, to separate participant selection from experimenter psi. The PEAR outlier analysis provides a specific effect-size estimate for the exceptional-performer subgroup that could anchor the power calculation.[2]

For the tryout-versus-formal discrepancy: a within-subjects design in which the same participants complete both a “tryout” session (framed as informal, no explicit performance criteria) and a “formal” session (framed as the real experiment, with pre-registration visible to participants), with order counterbalanced, would allow a direct test of whether framing affects performance independently of practice effects.[5]

References
  1. Mario Varvoglis – the Future of Psychophysics – Bruno Marion Futurist (2017). Bruno Marion. [YouTube] R001 ↩︎
  2. Varvoglis, M., & Bancel, P. A. (2015). Micro-psychokinesis. In E. Cardeña, J. Palmer, & D. Marcusson-Clavertz (Eds.), Parapsychology: A Handbook for the 21st Century (pp. 266-281). McFarland. R002 ↩︎
  3. Varvoglis, M., & Bancel, P. A. (2016). Micro-psychokinesis: Exceptional or universal? Journal of Parapsychology, 80(1), 37-43. R003 ↩︎
  4. Honorton, C., Berger, R. E., Varvoglis, M. P., Quant, M., Derr, P., Schechter, E. I., & Ferrari, D. C. (1990). Psi communication in the ganzfeld: Experiments with an automated testing system and a comparison with a meta-analysis of earlier studies. Journal of Parapsychology, 54, 99-139. R004 [Honorton 1990] ↩︎
  5. Bancel, P., Varvoglis, M., Boban, J., & Bensahra, A. (2025). A Forced-choice Precognition Experiment with Selected Cohorts. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 5(1), 14-46. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.26394 R005 [Bancel 2025] ↩︎
  6. Honorton, C., Barker, P., Varvoglis, M. P., Berger, R. E., & Schechter, E. I. (1986). First timers: An exploration of factors affecting initial psi ganzfeld performance. In D. H. Weiner & D. I. Radin (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1985 (pp. 28-30). Scarecrow Press. R006 [Honorton 1986] ↩︎
  7. Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding Advantageously Before Knowing the Advantageous Strategy. Science, 275(5304), 1293-1295. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 R007 [Bechara 1997] ↩︎
  8. Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629-634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 R008 [Egger 1997] ↩︎
  9. Tang, Y.-Y., Hölzel, B. K., & Posner, M. I. (2015). The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(4), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3916 R009 [Tang 2015] ↩︎
  10. Brefczynski-Lewis, J. A., Lutz, A., Schaefer, H. S., Levinson, D. B., & Davidson, R. J. (2007). Neural correlates of attentional expertise in long-term meditation practitioners. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(27), 11483-11488. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606552104 R010 [Brefczynski-Lewis 2007] ↩︎
  11. Gelman, A., & Carlin, J. (2014). Beyond Power Calculations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 641-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614551642 R011 [Gelman 2014] ↩︎
  12. Wackermann, J., Pütz, P., & Allefeld, C. (2008). Ganzfeld-induced hallucinatory experience, its phenomenology and cerebral electrophysiology. Cortex, 44(10), 1364-1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2007.05.003 R012 [Wackermann 2008] ↩︎
  13. Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001). A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 676-682. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.676 R013 [Raichle 2001] ↩︎
  14. Mason, M. F., Norton, M. I., Van Horn, J. D., Wegner, D. M., Grafton, S. T., & Macrae, C. N. (2007). Wandering Minds: The Default Network and Stimulus-Independent Thought. Science, 315(5810), 393-395. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131295 R014 [Mason 2007] ↩︎
  15. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2004). Detection Theory. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611147 R015 [Macmillan 2004] ↩︎
  16. Lutz, A., Slagter, H. A., Dunne, J. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2008). Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 163-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.005 R016 [Lutz 2008] ↩︎
  17. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 R017 [Open Science Collaboration 2015] ↩︎
  18. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-Positive Psychology. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632 R018 [Simmons 2011] ↩︎
  19. Storm, L. (2010). Meta-Analyses of Free-Response Studies 1997-2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 471-485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019457 R020 [Storm 2010] ↩︎
  20. Bösch, Holger, Steinkamp, Fiona, & Boller, Emil (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators—A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 497-523. R022 ↩︎
  21. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426-432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790 R023 [Wagenmakers 2011] ↩︎
  22. Daryl Bem (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 4-18. R024 ↩︎
  23. Etzel Cardeña (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. R025 ↩︎
  24. Tressoldi, P. E., & Katz, D. L. (2023). Remote viewing: A 1974-2022 systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 37(3), 467-489. [JSE] R026 ↩︎
  25. Jerry Solfvin (2016). The State of the Art of a Tough Place in Science and Psychology, Parapsychology. Parapsychology: A Handbook for the 21st Century edited by Etzel Cardeña, John Palmer, and David Marcusson-Clavertz. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 30(3). R027 ↩︎
  26. Iclif : Expanded Consciousness and Psi Phenomena | Dr. Mario Varvoglis (2014). ASB-Iclif Executive Education Centre. [YouTube] R028 ↩︎
  27. Mario P. Varvoglis: Laboratory ESP (2017). Parapsychological Association. [YouTube] R029 ↩︎
  28. Harvey J. Irwin & Caroline A. Watt (2007). An Introduction to Parapsychology (5th ed.). McFarland & Company. R030 ↩︎
  29. Dean I. Radin (2006). Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality. Paraview Pocket Books. ISBN 978-1416516774. R031 ↩︎
  30. Jessica M. Utts (1999). The Significance of Statistics in Mind-Matter Research. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 13(4), 615–638. https://ics.uci.edu/~jutts/JSE1999.pdf R032 ↩︎
  31. Henry, J. (Ed.) (2005). Parapsychology: Research on exceptional experiences. Routledge. [Routledge] R033 ↩︎
  32. Schönbrodt, F. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2018). Bayes factor design analysis: Planning for compelling evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 128-142. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1230-y R034 [Schönbrodt 2018] ↩︎

Deeper dives — Varvoglis:

Forced-Choice Precognition and GESP Consciousness, Intentionality Cross-Cultural Parapsychology Micro-PK and RNG Methodology

Last updated: 2026-07-04 21:38:21

AI-audited 2026-05-30 · Claude A+ · GPT-5 A+ · Perplexity A+ · Gemini A+

Copyright © 2026 Innovative Software Design. All rights reserved.

ESP-Nexus reports published parapsychology research as written by its own authors. Source-fidelity to cited documents is audited on every page; the site takes no position on the epistemic status of parapsychological claims themselves.